DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/03/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. Claim 15 recites “A second apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second apparatus at least to: transmit, to a first apparatus, pathloss information for at least one of: a beam switching of the first apparatus, or a transmission from the first apparatus to the second apparatus, wherein the pathloss information comprises at least one of: a pathloss value for the beam switching, or information for determining pathloss value”. The step of transmitting pathloss information is a mental process that can be done by a human. For instance, a human can transfer path loss information to a computer device by typing the information and entering them or writing them on a piece of paper. This step can also be interpreted as a post-solution activity. According to the Court, concepts determined to be abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)), and mental processes (Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,67 (1972)). The first apparatus, the second apparatus, the memory, and the processor cited in the body of claim 15 are general purpose computer components. The cited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the general-purpose computer system. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application, because the claim recites only a generic well- known computer component as additional elements (e.g., a memory and a processor). As explained above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional components, as cited in claim 15, are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea, because the claim limitations cited in this claim only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not meaningfully limit the claim, thus do not transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 16-19 are also directed to an abstract idea, similar to claim 15. The limitations cited in claims 16-19 only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not meaningfully limit these claims thus do not transform these claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Bai) (US 2022/0124634).
As to claims 1 and 20, Bai discloses a first apparatus (see Fig. 7, UE 120), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see paragraphs 0010-0011, Fig. 3, blocks 306 and 318, and paragraph 0061)), cause the first apparatus at least to: receive, from a second apparatus (see Fig. 7, block 110), pathloss information for a transmission from the first apparatus to the second apparatus (see Fig. 7, t6-t10 and paragraphs 0095-0097), wherein the pathloss information comprises information for determining pathloss value (see paragraphs 0096-0097); and perform, based on the pathloss value, the transmission (see Fig. 7, t12 and paragraphs 0097-0099).
As to claim 2, Bai discloses that the pathloss information is associated with at least one of: at least one reference signal (see Fig. 7, block t8 and paragraph 0096).
As to claim 15, Bai discloses a second apparatus (see Fig. 7, Base Station 110), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see paragraphs 0014-0015, Fig. 3, blocks 306 and 318, and paragraph 0061)), cause the first apparatus at least to: transmit, to a first apparatus (see Fig. 7, block 120), pathloss information for a transmission from the first apparatus to the second apparatus (see Fig. 7, t6-t10 and paragraphs 0095-0097), wherein the pathloss information comprises information for determining pathloss value (see paragraphs 0096-0097).
As to claim 16, Bai discloses that the pathloss information is associated with at least one of: at least one reference signal (see Fig. 7, block t8 and paragraph 0096).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, in view of Siomina et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Siomina) (US 2013/0040683).
As to claims 3, 17, and 18, Bai discloses all the subject matters claimed in claims 3, 17, and 18, except that the pathloss value comprises at least one absolute pathloss value for the transmission. Siomina, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that in a communication system the pathloss value can comprise an absolute pathloss measurement in downlink or uplink or relative pathloss measurement in downlink or uplink (see paragraphs 0203-0204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the teachings of Bai, as suggested by Siomina, in order to determine the required transmit power, receiver sensitivity, and antenna gains more accurately and obtain a better estimate of propagation conditions.
As to claims 4-7 and 19, these claims are only citing optional limitations and therefore no patentable weight has been given to the limitations cited in these claims. To be more specific, the “reference pathloss value” refers to an optional limitation cited in claims 3 and 18, no patentable weight has been given to this limitation. Claims 5-7 provide more information about the same optional limitation and therefore no patentable weight has been given to these claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, in view of Nagaraj et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Nagaraj) (WO 2017146773).
As to claim 8, Bai discloses all the subject matters claimed in claim 8, except that the information for determining the pathloss value comprises at least one measurement result of at least one reference signal, and the first apparatus is further caused to: determine the pathloss value based on the information. Nagaraj, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a communication system comprising a UE and a base station (see the abstract). Nagaraj further discloses that the UE may obtain a measurement of a beamformed reference signal (BRS) for a link of a set of active links, and derive a pathloss value based on the measurement of the BRS (see page 3, lines 28-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the teachings of Bai, as suggested by Nagaraj, in order to determine the pathloss value more accurately and enable the system to adapt to changing conditions of the environment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, in view of Zhou et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Zhou) (US 2023/0121938).
As to claim 9, Bai discloses all the subject matters claimed in claim 9, except that the first apparatus is further caused to: transmit, to the second apparatus, an indication of a capability of applying the pathloss information for performing at least one of: the beam switching, or the transmission to the second apparatus. Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a communication system comprising a UE and a base station (see Fig. 5, the “UE” and the “Base Station”). Zhou discloses that the UE is configured to transmit, to the second apparatus (i.e., the base station), an indication of a capability of applying the pathloss information for performing at least one of: the beam switching, or the transmission to the second apparatus (see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0171 and 0230). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the teachings of Bai, as suggested by Zhou, in order to improve link adaptation and improve the performance of the system by letting the system know which devices can use path loss information for radio resource management., avoiding unnecessary signaling.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai, in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter, referred to as Lee) (US 2024/0196337).
As to claim 13, Bai discloses all the subject matters claimed in claim 13, except that the pathloss value is associated with at least one target transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state to be switched to; or wherein the pathloss value is determined by an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model. Lee, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a communication system comprising a UE and a base station (see Fig. 3). Lee further discloses that the pathloss value is determined by an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model (see paragraphs 0121 and 0160). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the teachings of Bai, as suggested by Lee, in order to determine the pathloss value more efficiently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEILA MALEK whose telephone number is (571)272-8731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LEILA . MALEK
Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/LEILA MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights